Opposition Supports War Resisters

I tuned into CPAC today to watch the vote on the fate (137 in favour, 110 opposed) of the resisters to the US war in Iraq. I was not surprised to see the NDP and the Bloc vote in favour of their protection. I was somewhat surprised, however, to see the Liberals actually show up in relatively full force and vote... but then I realized that the Liberals could do this today because they had nothing at stake to do so.

The NDP and the Bloc had the principles that their parties hold dear at stake for them, but the Liberals, who sat on their hands with the budget implementation act (C-50), which includes the recent reforms to the immigration practices, continued their direction-less presence in the House of Commons. The Liberal party, minus a few select "leaders" and the passionate MP Andrew Telegdi (Kitcherner-Waterloo), decided it best to not represent their constitutents and/or prospective constituents, who would be affected to a greater degree by the immigration implications, and fight for US citizens that they do not represent. Whether or not Canada supports the international endeavours of our ally and neighbour to the South, the allegiances of the Members of Parliament should be to their constituents first and foremost.

How can the Liberal party honestly justify their actions over the past 24 hours to their faithful constituents? Telegdi answered this to some respect, quoting the "political realities" of the moment and the Government's desire to contest an election over Bill C-50 but this doesn't change the fact that the members elected to protect the interests of the citizens of another country and not the citizens of this country.

Now on to the initiative itself...

Canada, despite its objections to the War in Iraq, should not harbour the criminals of another country. These resisters as they call themselves are actually deserters of the US Armed Forces. This, under the United States' Uniform Code of Military Justice, is a crime that is punishable by court martial or even, during times of war, death. These deserters were all members of the armed forces before and even during the US invasion of Iraq and now claim conscientious objector status. Their requests for this status has been denied and now they are fugitives of military law. These claims are investigated for their legitimacy and then judged as to whether or not they are genuine. So in effect, these people do not like the judgement they were given and decided that they would rather be cowards and run from the laws of their home nation. These are not the types of people that we should be giving shelter to. Let us save room for people who truly need sanctuary and not from cowards who regret the choices they made. Don't forget there is no longer a draft in the US so these people signed up on their own accord. Canada may have given sanctuary to US citizens, during the Vietnam War, who were opposed to the war but these people had no choice of whether or not to serve. These people chose to enlist and now they don't want to fulfill their commitments. If they truly felt as strong as they claim against the war, they would serve the jail sentences that accompany conviction of desertion and more effectively show their opposition to the US presence in Iraq.

Unfortunately, this is all moot now because the initiative passed and now we must accept these people into our country. But what do we do with them now?? Hey, why not enlist them for service into Afghanistan? They are soldiers and Canada needs soldiers. But then again, Canadian soldiers are brave and honourable people, unlike these guys.

-blenCOWe